Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Pact Coffee

Draft:Pact Coffee

This draft appears to be an unambiguous advertisement. Samoht27 (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Probably could be G11, but we are here. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has good looking referencing (though on examination they look nonindependent). It definitely is not g11-eligible. It is written up like a fair Wikipedia article. It merely fails WP:N. This is not a reason to delete from draftspace, and never should be. Advise the proponent to use WP:SIRS, and that two or three sources need to meet the WP:GNG, and if two or three do not, no number of additional worse sources will do. But, MfD is not the forum for this. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks very promotional to me with lines such as "Customers receive freshly roasted coffee from Pact's roastery in Haslemere, Surrey, with delivery promised within seven days of roasting as part of its commitment to freshness." Draftspace should not be a permanent repository for unacceptable content. AusLondonder (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily for you, its not permanent. Curbon7 (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G11 is not for things that could be fixed, like a promotional tone.

Your concern is taken care of by the implementation of WP:G13. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What if it's not abandoned? AusLondonder (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then it stays. Short of it being tendentiously submitted, or submitted after rejection, draftspace is for people to try to improve drafts for as long as they choose. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so easy to be sure that an article on this topic is impossible in the foreseeable future. I did some superficial work on the draft and it was trivial for me to increase the encyclopedicity of the content using additional, not-so-bad, sources. —Alalch E. 00:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep: If this had no sources, it would probably be a delete. With the sources, I think it's just enough to meet the minimum of being a suitable draft. Curbon7 (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to reiterate what I said elsewhere here, this is a draft that is being constantly improved after every decline. If this MfD had occurred at creation, then it would have been uncontroversially G11 speedied but with the edits I think this now meets the very low bar for drafts. Curbon7 (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The draft has been submitted and ~~rejected~~ declined four times, it's clearly unsuitable. Per this RfC, the community consensus is inappropriate drafts repeatedly submitted may be deleted by MfD. The language used in the draft, such as "Customers receive freshly roasted coffee from Pact's roastery in Haslemere, Surrey, with delivery promised within seven days of roasting as part of its commitment to freshness" is unencyclopedic and promotional. Simply keeping an inappropriate draft in hope it will eventually be abandoned so it can then be deleted makes no sense. AusLondonder (talk) 07:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a problem with specific sentences, just delete those sentences; no need to blow the whole thing up. 4 declines but with improvement in between is not tendentious, it is a new editor not really knowing how we write on here but trying their best. Curbon7 (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you're so passionate about this after your "weak keep". "A new editor not really knowing how we write on here but trying their best" is not the way I'd describe a paid contributor. AusLondonder (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually exactly how I'd describe a *disclosed* paid contributor. Curbon7 (talk) 08:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I firmly disagree. I don't believe Wikipedia is the place for paid advertorials about non-notable companies rejected at AfC four times. I'm surprised you do, but we'll have to agree to disagree. AusLondonder (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it at this. At AfC, we get a lot of slop; practically every third draft submission is WP:UPE garbage, and there is usually no improvement between instantaneous resubmissions. So it is refreshing to see a draft like this where the creator is actively improving the draft after each decline ([1][2]), and where the draft has actual sourcing. Even the sentence you cite above has already been cleaned ([3][4]). As a draft, it doesn't have to be notable and doesn't have to be accept-worthy, it just has to not cross the line into requiring early deletion. And while I do share your detestment for paid editing - I find it contrary to the entire point of this website - it is currently allowed if they are transparent and disclose properly. Curbon7 (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you're so passionate about this, it's a matter of principle. Curbon7 (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:AusLondonder, I see no rejects. Reject is different to decline. Declines imply that it can be improved to become good enough. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing stance to Keep, I know I nominated this for deletion, but as i've become a bit more accustomed to draft space, i've become more accustomed to its very loose requirements, one could likely just let the draft run its course if it is not improved. Samoht27 (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I took a look and even if this were cleaned up for promotional tone, it does not meet notability guidelines. The references fail WP:ORGCRIT and I cannot see this surviving an AfD discussion should it go that route from the main space. I would actually reject it as a reviewer. Nothing wrong with keeping it in draft space but a WP:BEFORE shows there isn't anything available that can improve the notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity, so for MfD purposes it doesn't matter if it is notable or not. Curbon7 (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the sources are not good enough, primarily due to non independence. I agree that it would be deleted at AfD. I disagree that it should be REJECTed, as there is a claim to notability, and qualifying sources may exist or may appear in the future. In the meantime, I recommend that the topic proponent go to the advice at WP:THREE, and do not simply keep adding sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep probably not suitable for article space as is, but that's not a valid reason for deleting drafts. Pinguinn 🐧 03:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If it's not notable now chances are it won't be notable in 2 years time, This has been declined 4 times already and so at this point it's just wasting page reviewers time which could be better spent reviewing new articles. Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 12:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I too think it will probably never pass WP:CORP, but why not let AfC process work as they should. “Decline” means the reviewer believes there is potential to make it good enough. If not, the reviewer uses “Reject”. MfD is supposed to be reserved for tendentious resubmission, or resubmission after rejection. If every bad draft were put through MfD, it would swamp MfD, and for no benefit. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep average declined then rejected draft about a company. People who have seen many drafts should notice the commonness and normality of this situation, which does not need special attention from multiple people over a period of seven days. —Alalch E. 00:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since we're here, there's no point in this page's continued existence, but I agree with Alalch E. that this MfD was pointless. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as G11. We'll see how that goes. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 17:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing admin comment As there are "keeps" here, I certainly will not speedily delete it. A snowstorm of "deletes" would have been different. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]